Background-independent measurement of θ13 in Double Chooz

JID:PLB AID:30157 /SCO Doctopic: Experiments

[m5Gv1.3; v 1.133; Prn:9/05/2014; 15:54] P.1 (1-6)

Physics Letters B ••• (••••) •••–•••

1

66

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

2

67

3

68

Physics Letters B

4

69

5

70

6

71

www.elsevier.com/locate/physletb

7

72

8

73

9

74

10

75

11 12

Background-independent measurement of θ13 in Double Chooz

13 14

76 77 78

Double Chooz Collaboration

79

15

80

ab

e

n

v

a

i

81

45

Y. Abe , J.C. dos Anjos , J.C. Barriere , E. Baussan , I. Bekman , M. Bergevin , T.J.C. Bezerra z , L. Bezrukov m , E. Blucher f , C. Buck s , J. Busenitz b , A. Cabrera d , E. Caden j , L. Camilleri h , R. Carr h , M. Cerrada g , P.-J. Chang o , E. Chauveau z , P. Chimenti ae , A.P. Collin n , E. Conover f , J.M. Conrad r , J.I. Crespo-Anadón g , K. Crum f , A. Cucoanes w , E. Damon j , J.V. Dawson d,ah , D. Dietrich ad , Z. Djurcic c , M. Dracos v , M. Elnimr b , A. Etenko q , M. Fallot w , F. von Feilitzsch x , J. Felde i , S.M. Fernandes b , V. Fischer n , D. Franco d , M. Franke x , H. Furuta z , I. Gil-Botella g , L. Giot w , M. Göger-Neff x , L.F.G. Gonzalez af , L. Goodenough c , M.C. Goodman c , C. Grant i , N. Haag x , T. Hara p , J. Haser s , M. Hofmann x , G.A. Horton-Smith o , A. Hourlier d , M. Ishitsuka ab , J. Jochum ad , C. Jollet v , F. Kaether s , L.N. Kalousis ag , Y. Kamyshkov y , D.M. Kaplan l , T. Kawasaki t , E. Kemp af , H. de Kerret d,ah , T. Konno ab , D. Kryn d , M. Kuze ab , T. Lachenmaier ad , C.E. Lane j , T. Lasserre n,d , A. Letourneau n , D. Lhuillier n , H.P. Lima Jr. e , M. Lindner s , J.M. López-Castaño g , J.M. LoSecco u , B.K. Lubsandorzhiev m , S. Lucht a , J. Maeda ac , C. Mariani ag , J. Maricic j , J. Martino w , T. Matsubara ac , G. Mention n , A. Meregaglia v , T. Miletic j , R. Milincic j , A. Minotti v , Y. Nagasaka k , K. Nakajima t , Y. Nikitenko m , P. Novella d , M. Obolensky d , L. Oberauer x , A. Onillon w , A. Osborn y , C. Palomares g , I.M. Pepe e , S. Perasso d , P. Pfahler x , A. Porta w , G. Pronost w , J. Reichenbacher b , B. Reinhold s , M. Röhling ad , R. Roncin d , S. Roth a , B. Rybolt y , Y. Sakamoto aa , R. Santorelli g , F. Sato ac , A.C. Schilithz e , S. Schönert x , S. Schoppmann a , M.H. Shaevitz h , R. Sharankova ab , S. Shimojima ac , V. Sibille n , V. Sinev m,n , M. Skorokhvatov q , E. Smith j , J. Spitz r , A. Stahl a , I. Stancu b , L.F.F. Stokes ad , M. Strait f , A. Stüken a , F. Suekane z , S. Sukhotin q , T. Sumiyoshi ac , Y. Sun b , R. Svoboda i , K. Terao r , A. Tonazzo d , H.H. Trinh Thi x , G. Valdiviesso e , N. Vassilopoulos v , C. Veyssiere n , M. Vivier n , S. Wagner s , H. Watanabe s , C. Wiebusch a , L. Winslow r , M. Wurm ad , G. Yang c,l , F. Yermia w , V. Zimmer x

46

a

111

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

III. Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen University, 52056 Aachen, Germany b Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA c Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439, USA d APC, AstroParticule et Cosmologie, Université Paris Diderot, CNRS/IN2P3, CEA/IRFU, Observatoire de Paris, Sorbonne Paris Cité, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France e Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, cep 22290-180, Brazil f The Enrico Fermi Institute, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA g Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas, CIEMAT, E-28040, Madrid, Spain h Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA i University of California, Davis, CA 95616-8677, USA j Physics Department, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA k Hiroshima Institute of Technology, Hiroshima, 731-5193, Japan l Department of Physics, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 60616, USA m Institute of Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Science, Russia n Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives, Centre de Saclay, IRFU, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France o Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA p Department of Physics, Kobe University, Kobe, 657-8501, Japan q NRC Kurchatov Institute, 123182 Moscow, Russia r Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA s Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany t Department of Physics, Niigata University, Niigata, 950-2181, Japan

63 64 65

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.04.045 0370-2693/© 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). Funded by 3

SCOAP .

129 130

JID:PLB

AID:30157 /SCO Doctopic: Experiments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

[m5Gv1.3; v 1.133; Prn:9/05/2014; 15:54] P.2 (1-6)

Double Chooz Collaboration / Physics Letters B ••• (••••) •••–•••

2

u

66

University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556-5670, USA IPHC, Université de Strasbourg, CNRS/IN2P3, F-67037 Strasbourg, France w SUBATECH, CNRS/IN2P3, Université de Nantes, Ecole des Mines de Nantes, F-44307 Nantes, France x Physik Department, Technische Universität München, 85747 Garching, Germany y Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA z Research Center for Neutrino Science, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8578, Japan aa Tohoku Gakuin University, Sendai, 981-3193, Japan ab Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, 152-8551, Japan ac Department of Physics, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo, 192-0397, Japan ad Kepler Center for Astro and Particle Physics, Universität Tübingen, 72076 Tübingen, Germany ae Universidade Federal do ABC, UFABC, Saõ Paulo, Santo André, SP, Brazil af Universidade Estadual de Campinas – UNICAMP, Campinas, SP, Brazil ag Center for Neutrino Physics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA ah Laboratoire Neutrino de Champagne Ardenne, domaine d’Aviette, 08600 Rancennes, France v

67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77

13

78

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

79

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 23 January 2014 Received in revised form 15 April 2014 Accepted 24 April 2014 Available online xxxx Editor: H. Weerts

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a b s t r a c t

80

The oscillation results published by the Double Chooz Collaboration in 2011 and 2012 rely on background models substantiated by reactor-on data. In this analysis, we present a background-model-independent measurement of the mixing angle θ13 by including 7.53 days of reactor-off data. A global fit of the observed antineutrino rates for different reactor power conditions is performed, yielding a measurement of both θ13 and the total background rate. The results on the mixing angle are improved significantly by including the reactor-off data in the fit, as it provides a direct measurement of the total background rate. This reactor rate modulation analysis considers antineutrino candidates with neutron captures on both Gd and H, whose combination yields sin2 (2θ13 ) = 0.102 ± 0.028(stat.) ± 0.033(syst.). The results presented in this study are fully consistent with the ones already published by Double Chooz, achieving a competitive precision. They provide, for the first time, a determination of θ13 that does not depend on a background model. © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). Funded by SCOAP3 .

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

29

94

30

95

31 32

96

1. Introduction

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Recently, three reactor neutrino experiments, Double Chooz [1], Daya Bay [2] and RENO [3] have successfully determined the leptonic mixing angle θ13 to be clearly non-zero. These disappearance experiments are sensitive to the oscillation amplitude and have measured sin2 (2θ13 ) to be ∼ 0.1. They identify reactor antineutrinos via the inverse beta decay (IBD) reaction ν¯ e p → e + n and use a coincidence between the prompt positron and the delayed neutron capture signals in order to separate antineutrinos from background events. However, correlated events due to fast neutrons, stopping muons and cosmogenic generated radio-nuclides form a dangerous background in experiments with shallow overburden. So far, all published results are based on background models, which are derived from data taken during reactor-on periods using certain assumptions about the origin of correlated background events. This procedure contributes, along with detection efficiency and reactor source errors, to the total systematic uncertainty. In this paper, we present a first measurement of θ13 which is free from background assumptions. Of the three experiments, Double Chooz is the only one to be exposed to only two reactors. The total antineutrino flux therefore changes significantly during reactor maintenance periods when one of the two reactor cores is not functioning. At certain times both cores at Chooz were turned off simultaneously, providing the unique opportunity to determine the background in a model independent way. In this paper we present an analysis of the Double Chooz data in which the background rate and the oscillation amplitude are determined simultaneously by analyzing the ν¯ e candidate rates for different reactor conditions ranging from zero to full thermal power. The background rate has been proven to be constant in time [4], thus being the same in all the considered reactor periods. We restrict our analysis to rate measurements only. In order to identify antineutrino events via the inverse beta decay, we use

both neutron captures on Gd and on H. Finally, we present a combined Gd- and H-analysis and compare our final result with the published ones that rely on the energy spectrum information. This analysis is also useful as a direct test of the background model used for the Double Chooz oscillation analysis. We will show that our background rate determination is in full agreement with the prediction derived from our background model.

97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

2. Reactor Rate Modulation analysis

106

In order to measure the mixing angle θ13 by means of reactor neutrino experiments, the observed rate of ν¯ e candidates (R obs ) is compared with the expected one (R exp ). As Double Chooz data have been taken for different reactor thermal power ( P th ) conditions, this comparison can be done for different expected averaged rates, in a Reactor Rate Modulation (RRM) analysis. In particular, there are three well-defined reactor configurations: (1) the two reactors are on (2-On data), (2) one of the reactors is off (1-Off reactor data), and (3) both reactors are off (2-Off reactor data). For the 1-Off and 2-Off reactor data, the expected antineutrino rate takes into account the residual neutrinos (R r-ν ) generated after the reactors are turned off as β decays keep taking place. While the antineutrino flux generated during reactor operation is computed as described in [1], the rate of residual antineutrinos is estimated as described in [4]. From the comparison between R exp and R obs at different reactor powers both the value of θ13 and the total background rate B can be derived. The correlation of the expected and observed rates follows a linear model parametrized by sin2 (2θ13 ) and B:

 = B + 1 − sin (2θ13 )ηosc R ν , 

107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

(1)

127

where R ν is the expected rate of actual antineutrinos in absence of oscillation and ηosc is the average disappearance coefficient,

129

R

obs

=B+R

exp

2

128 130

JID:PLB AID:30157 /SCO Doctopic: Experiments

[m5Gv1.3; v 1.133; Prn:9/05/2014; 15:54] P.3 (1-6)

Double Chooz Collaboration / Physics Letters B ••• (••••) •••–•••

3

1

66

2

67

3

68

4

69

5

70

6

71

7

72

8

73

9

74

10

75

11

76

12

77

13

78

14

79

15

80

16

81

17

82

18

83

19 20 21 22

84

Fig. 1. Expected unoscillated antineutrino event rate as a function of the total Nr i 2 ∗ = baseline-adjusted thermal power ( P th P th / L i ), for the n-Gd and n-H anali ∗ yses. P th is presented in percentage of the nominal power.

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

2

sin (m L /4E ). This coefficient is computed by means of simulations for each one of the data points as the integration of the normalized antineutrino energy (E) spectrum multiplied by the oscillation effect driven by m2 (taken from [5]) and the distance L between the reactor cores and the detector. The average ηosc value corresponding to the full data sample is computed to be 0.55. Fitting the data to the above model provides a direct measurement of the mixing angle and the total background rate. In previous Double Chooz publications [1,6], the rates and the energy spectra of the three dominant background sources (fast neutrons, stopping muons and cosmogenic isotope β -n decays) were estimated from reactor-on data, therefore building a background model that was fitted along with the mixing angle. In contrast, the RRM analysis extracts the total background rate from data in a model-independent and inclusive way, where all background sources (even possible unknown ones) are accounted for. The accuracy and precision on the fitted value of B, as well as on θ13 , rely mostly on the 2-Off reactor data, as this sample provides a powerful lever arm for the fit. As the accidental background in the observed rate is known to 0.2% by means of the off-time coincidences, the RRM analysis is performed with accidental-subtracted candidate samples. Therefore, hereafter the total background B refers to all background sources except the accidental one. The RRM oscillation analysis can be performed separately with the ν¯ e candidate samples obtained with neutron captures on Gd (n-Gd) and H (n-H), as well as with a combination of these. In the current analysis, the data sample in [1,6] is used along with an extra 2-Off sample collected in 2012 [4], which increases the total 2-Off run time to 7.53 days. Within the corresponding total live time of 233.93 days (246.4 days), 8257 (36 883) candidates (including accidental background) were found according to the n-Gd (n-H) selection, 8 (599) of which were observed during the 2-Off period. The number of antineutrino events expected to be observed in the reactor-on periods was 8440 (17 690). During the 1-Off period, the number of predicted residual events is 11.2 (28.7), while within the 2-Off period, 1.4 (3.7) residual events are expected in the n-Gd (n-H) selection. The data are distributed in 7 bins of P th , corresponding to two different sets of bins of R exp for the n-Gd and n-H ν¯ e candidate samples. The binning used for this analysis is shown in Fig. 1, where the expected rates are presented as a function of the total baseline-adjusted thermal power, Nr i 2 ∗ = P th P th / L i , where N r = 2 is the number of reactors and L i i

Fig. 2. Uncertainty in the n-Gd ν¯ e expected rate for reactor-on data. Triangles show the rate error due to P th uncertainty, while circles stand for the total rate error accounting for all reactor-related systematics sources, as described and estimated in [1].

2

85 86 87 88 89

is the distance between the detector and reactor i. The error bars in the expected rates (not visible for all data points) account for the systematic errors.

90 91 92 93

3. Systematic uncertainties There are three sources of systematics to be accounted for in the RRM analysis: (1) detection efficiency (σd ), (2) residual ν¯ e prediction in reactor-off data (σν ), and (3) ν¯ e prediction in reactor-on data (σr ). The detection efficiency systematics in n-Gd (n-H) ν¯ e sample are listed in [1] (see also [6]), from which the total uncertainty σd is derived to be 1.01% (1.57%). The uncertainty in the rate of residual antineutrinos has been computed with core evolution simulations as described in [4] for the 1-Off and 2-Off reactor periods: a σν = 30% error is assigned to R r-ν . Finally, a dedicated study has been performed in order to estimate σr as a function of the thermal power. To a good approximation, all sources of reactor-related systematics are independent of P th , with the exception of the uncertainty on P th itself, σP . This fractional error is 0.5% [1] when the reactors are running at full power, but it increases as P th decreases. In [1,6], σP is assumed to be 0.5% for all data. This is a very good approximation when one integrates all the data taking samples, and consequently all reactor operation conditions, as more than 90% of the data are taken at full reactor power. However, this is not a valid approximation in the current analysis as it relies on separating the data according to different reactor powers. In order to compute σP for different P th , an empirical model is fitted to a sample of measurements provided by EdF (the company operating the Chooz nuclear plant). An effective absolute uncertainty of about 35 MW is derived from the fit, being the dominant component of the model. This absolute error translates into a 1/ P th dependence of the relative power uncertainty, which is used to compute the errors in R exp . The resulting errors (both from P th only and from all reactor systematic sources listed in [1]) are shown in Fig. 2, for the case of the n-Gd ν¯ e expectation. The total error σri (where i stands for each data point) ranges from 1.75% (reactors operating at full power) to 1.92% (one or two reactors not at full power). In a conservative approach, the σri errors are assumed to be fully correlated.

94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130

JID:PLB

AID:30157 /SCO Doctopic: Experiments

[m5Gv1.3; v 1.133; Prn:9/05/2014; 15:54] P.4 (1-6)

Double Chooz Collaboration / Physics Letters B ••• (••••) •••–•••

4

1

66

2

67

3

68

4

69

5

70

6

71

7

72

8

73

9

74

10

75

11

76

12

77

13

78

14

79

15

80

16

81

17

82

18

83

19

84

20 21 22 23

Fig. 3. RRM (sin2 (2θ13 ), B Gd ) fit with n-Gd ν¯ e candidates. Empty (solid) best-fit point and C.L. regions show the results without (with) the 2-Off data sample.

4. Background independent oscillation results

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

The R obs fit is based on a standard χ 2 minimization. Without taking into account the 2-Off data, the χ 2 definition is divided into 2 2 2 two different terms: χ 2 = χon + χpull , where χon stands for 2-On 2 pull

and 1-Off reactor data and χ accounts for the systematic uncertainties. Assuming Gaussian-distributed errors for the data points 2 involving at least one reactor on, χon is built as follows:

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

2 on

χ =

exp N  ( R obs − R [1 + α d + ki α r + w i α ν ] − B )2 i

i

2 σstat

i

,

(2)

where N stands for the number of bins (6, as shown in Fig. 1), and where α d , α r and α ν stand for pulls associated with the detection, reactor-on and residual antineutrino systematics, respectively. The weights ki are defined as σri /σr , where σr = 1.75% stands for the error when the cores operate at full power. The fraction of residual ν / R exp . antineutrinos, w i , in each data point is defined as w i = R ri i 2 The term χpull incorporates the penalty terms corresponding to σr , σd and σν :



d 2

α 2 χpull = σd



r 2

α + σr

+

 ν 2 α

σν

.

(3)

According to this χ 2 definition, a fit to the two free parameters sin2 (2θ13 ) and the total background rate B Gd is performed with the n-Gd candidates sample. The results are shown in Fig. 3 with best-fit point (empty star) and C.L. intervals. The best fit values are sin2 (2θ13 ) = 0.21 ± 0.12 and B Gd = 2.8 ± 2.0 events/day, where the errors correspond to χ 2 = 2.3. Although the precision is poor, these results are consistent within 1σ with the ones presented in [1]. In particular, the best fit value for the background is consistent with the independent estimate in [1] (1.9 ± 0.6 events/day) and with the direct measurement obtained from the 2-Off data in [4]: B 2Off = 0.7 ± 0.4 events/day (once accidental background is subtracted). In order to improve the RRM determination of sin2 (2θ13 ), the 2-Off data can be incorporated into the fit as an additional data 2 2 point for P th = 0 MW. The χ 2 is built then as χ 2 = χon + χoff + 2 χpull . Due to the low n-Gd statistics in the 2-Off reactor period, the

85 86 87 88

corresponding error in R obs is considered to be Poisson-distributed. 2 As a consequence, χoff is defined as a binned Poisson likelihood

24 25

Fig. 4. RRM fit with n-Gd ν¯ e candidates including 2-Off data. The null oscillation hypothesis assuming the background estimates obtained in [1] is also shown for comparison purposes.

following a

2

χ distribution:

 2 χoff = 2 N obs ln

89 90 91 92

N obs

93

B + N exp [1 + α d + α ν ]

94

  exp d ν obs , +B+N 1+α +α −N

95

(4)

96 97 98

where N obs = R obs · T off and N exp = R r-ν · T off ; T off the live time of the 2-Off data sample. The results of the (sin2 (2θ13 ), B) fit including the 2-Off data are presented in Fig. 3 with solid best-fit point and C.L. intervals. The best fit values are sin2 (2θ13 ) = 0.107 ± 0.074 and B Gd = 0.9 ± 0.6 events/day. As the 2-Off data provide the most precise determination of the total background rate in a model-independent way, the introduction of this sample (or equivalently the value of B 2Off ) in the RRM fit provides a direct constraint to B. Therefore, hereafter we consider θ13 to be the only free parameter in the fit, while B is treated as a nuisance parameter. Therefore, the best fit error on θ13 corresponds to χ 2 = 1. The outcome of the corresponding fit using the n-Gd sample can be seen in Fig. 4. The best fit value of sin2 (2θ13 ) is now 0.107 ± 0.049, with a χ 2 /dof of 4.2/5. The value of θ13 is in good agreement with the result of [1] (sin2 (2θ13 ) = 0.109 ± 0.039), while the error is slightly larger due to the fact that the RRM analysis does not incorporate energy spectrum information. The RRM fit does not change the measurement of the total background rate provided by the 2-Off data significantly, as the best fit estimate of B Gd is 0.9 ± 0.4 events/day. While the best fit value of the total background rate depends on the antineutrino candidate selection cuts, the best fit of θ13 must be independent of these cuts. In order to cross-check the above results, the RRM analysis has also been performed for a different set of selection cuts: those applied in the first Double Chooz oscillation analysis [7]. This selection does not make use of the muon outer veto (OV) and does not apply a showering muon veto. Therefore, the number of correlated background events in the ν¯ e candidates sample is increased (according to the estimates, by 1.3 events/day). In this case, the input value for the background rate provided by the 2-Off data is B 2Off = 2.4 ± 0.6 events/day [4]. The fit yields sin2 (2θ13 ) = 0.120 ± 0.053, which is fully consistent

99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130

JID:PLB AID:30157 /SCO Doctopic: Experiments

[m5Gv1.3; v 1.133; Prn:9/05/2014; 15:54] P.5 (1-6)

Double Chooz Collaboration / Physics Letters B ••• (••••) •••–•••

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

5

with the above results, while the background rate is not significantly modified either in this case (B Gd = 2.6 ± 0.6 events/day). As shown in [6], the precision of the oscillation analysis based on n-H captures is not as good as the n-Gd one due to the larger systematic uncertainties and the larger accidental contamination. This applies also to the RRM analysis. The n-H fit yields sin2 (2θ13 ) = 0.091 ± 0.078 (B 2Off = 10.8 ± 3.4 events/day, B H = 8.7 ± 2.5 events/day) with χ 2 /dof = 4.8/5, consistent with the results in [6] (sin2 (2θ13 ) = 0.097 ± 0.048). The n-H candidates can be fitted together with the n-Gd ones in order to increase the precision of the analysis and to test the consistency of both selections. In order to perform a global fit, a combined χ 2 is built from the sum of the Gd and H ones:

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

79

2 2 χ 2 = χGd + χH2 + χpull .

81

While σr and σν are fully correlated between the n-Gd and n-H candidates samples (they do not depend on selection cuts, but on reactor parameters), there is a partial correlation (ρ ) in the detection efficiency uncertainty, which has been estimated to be at the level of 9%. This overall factor comes from correlated and anti-correlated contributions. The correlated contributions are due to the spill-in/out events (IBD events in which the prompt and the delayed signal do not occur in the same detection volume, as defined in [1]) and the number of protons in the detection volumes. The anti-correlated contribution is due to the uncertainty in the fraction of neutron captures in Gd and H. From this ρ d value, one can decompose σd into uncorrelated (σGd-u = 0.91% and

σ

d H-u

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

83 84

Fig. 5. RRM combined fit using n-Gd and n-H ν¯ e candidates.

89 90 91 92 93 94 95

n-Gd and n-H data. The pull α in Eq. (3) is now divided into three terms accounting for the correlated and uncorrelated parts of the d d 2 detection error: αGd-u , αH-u and αcd . Accordingly, χpull is defined as: d αGd-u 2 χpull = d σGd-u



αr + σr

2 2



d αH-u + d σH-u

+

2

 ν 2 α

σν



αcd + σcd

86 88

d



85 87

= 1.43%) and correlated contributions (σ = 0.38%) for the

96 97 98 99

2

100 101 102 103

.

(6)

The combined Gd-H RRM fit is shown in Fig. 5. The best fit value of the mixing angle is sin2 (2θ13 ) = 0.102 ± 0.028(stat.) ± 0.033(syst.), for χ 2 /dof = 8.0/11. This value is consistent within 1σ with respect to the single n-Gd and n-H results, while the precision is slightly improved. The relative error on sin2 (2θ13 ) goes from 46% to 42%. As in the previous results, the output values of the total background rates are consistent with the input values: B Gd = 0.9 ± 0.4 events/day and B H = 9.0 ± 1.5 events/day. The impact of the correlated part in σ d has been proven to be negligible by performing a fit assuming no correlation. 5. Comparison of Double Chooz θ13 results

53 54

82

d c

51 52

80

(5)

Including this novel RRM analysis, Double Chooz has released four different θ13 analysis results. These results are obtained as follows: (1) with n-Gd candidates in [1], (2) with n-H candidates in [6], (3) with n-Gd candidates and the RRM analysis, and (4) with n-H candidates and the RRM analysis. Beyond the common detection and reactor-related systematics, these four analyses rely on two different candidate samples (n-H and n-Gd), and two different analysis techniques (rate + shape fit with background inputs and RRM). The four sin2 (θ13 ) values obtained are presented in Fig. 6, as well as the combined Gd-H RRM result. All the values are consistent within 1σ with respect to the most precise result, which is provided by the rate + shape fit.

104 105 106

Fig. 6. Summary of published Double Chooz results on θ13 : the n-Gd [1] and n-H [6] rate plus shape (RS) results, and the n-Gd and n-H RRM ones. For comparison purposes, the combined Gd-H RRM result is also shown. The shaded region shows the 68% C.L. interval of the n-Gd RS fit.

107 108 109 110

6. Summary and conclusions

111 112

While the oscillation results published by the Double Chooz Collaboration in [1,6,7] rely on a background model derived from reactor-on data, the RRM analysis is a background model independent approach. Both θ13 and the total background rate are derived without model assumptions on the background by a global fit to the observed antineutrino rate as a function of the nonoscillated expected rate for different reactor power conditions. Although the RRM fit with only reactor-on data does not achieve a competitive precision on θ13 , it provides an independent determination of the total background rate. This rate is consistent with the Double Chooz background model and with the measurement of the total background from the 7.53 days of reactor-off data [4]. As this 2-Off sample provides the most precise determination of the total background rate in a model independent way, it is introduced in the RRM analysis in order to improve the results on θ13 , which remains as the only free parameter in the fit. The best fit value of sin2 (2θ13 ) = 0.107 ± 0.049 is found by analyzing the n-Gd ν¯ e candidates. Finally, the precision on θ13 is

113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130

JID:PLB

AID:30157 /SCO Doctopic: Experiments

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

[m5Gv1.3; v 1.133; Prn:9/05/2014; 15:54] P.6 (1-6)

Double Chooz Collaboration / Physics Letters B ••• (••••) •••–•••

further improved by combining the n-Gd and n-H ν¯ e samples: sin2 (2θ13 ) = 0.102 ± 0.028(stat.) ± 0.033(syst.). The outcome of the RRM fit is consistent within 1σ with the already published results for θ13 , yielding a competitive precision. Beyond the cross-check of the background estimates in the Double Chooz oscillation analyses, the RRM analysis provides, for the first time, a background model independent determination of the θ13 mixing angle.

8 9 10

Acknowledgements

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

We thank the French electricity company EDF; the European fund FEDER; the Région de Champagne Ardenne; the Département des Ardennes; and the Communauté des Communes Ardennes Rives de Meuse. We acknowledge the support of the CEA, CNRS/IN2P3, the computer center CCIN2P3, and LabEx UnivEarthS in France; the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (MEXT) and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS); the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation of the United States; the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (MICINN) of Spain; the Max Planck Gesellschaft, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG (SBH WI 2152), the Transregional Collaborative Research Center TR27, the excellence

cluster “Origin and Structure of the Universe”, and the MaierLeibnitz-Laboratorium Garching in Germany; the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Kurchatov Institute and RFBR (the Russian Foundation for Basic Research); the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI), the Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP), the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), and the Brazilian Network for High Energy Physics (RENAFAE) in Brazil.

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

References

76 77

[1] Y. Abe, et al., Double Chooz Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 052008, arXiv:1207.6632 [hep-ex]. [2] F.P. An, et al., Daya Bay Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 171803, arXiv: 1203.1669 [hep-ex]. [3] J.K. Ahn, et al., Reno Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 191802, arXiv: 1204.0626 [hep-ex]. [4] Y. Abe, et al., Double Chooz Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 011102, arXiv: 1210.3748 [hep-ex]. [5] P. Adamson, et al., MINOS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 181801. [6] Y. Abe, et al., Double Chooz Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 723 (2013) 66, arXiv: 1301.2948 [hep-ex]. [7] Y. Abe, et al., Double Chooz Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 131801, arXiv:1112.6353 [hep-ex].

78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

24

89

25

90

26

91

27

92

28

93

29

94

30

95

31

96

32

97

33

98

34

99

35

100

36

101

37

102

38

103

39

104

40

105

41

106

42

107

43

108

44

109

45

110

46

111

47

112

48

113

49

114

50

115

51

116

52

117

53

118

54

119

55

120

56

121

57

122

58

123

59

124

60

125

61

126

62

127

63

128

64

129

65

130